HomeCasesEric Hildebrandt v. siParadigm LLC et al.

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Eric Hildebrandt v. siParadigm LLC et al.

D. New Jersey · Dec 31, 2025

NJ / federalEditorial impact: lowfake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authoritycontract

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Supplemental Filing contained forty-three identified instances of fabricated citations or case law; Court declined to consider the filing and treated those propositions as unsupported.

Why the court cared: Fabricated: Case Law | Supplemental Filing contained forty-three identified instances of fabricated citations or case law; Court declined to consider the filing and treated those propositions as unsupported. || Fabricated: Case Law | Consolidated Complaint was 'replete with citations to irrelevant, and sometimes fabricated, case law' across many paragraphs; Court refused to credit those citations. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Defendants noted several incorrect/inaccurate citations in the Consolidated Complaint, including two cases cited over fifty times that did not support Plaintiffs' propositions; counsel's errata did not cure these inaccuracies. || False Quotes: Exhibits & Submissions | Plaintiffs' Opposition contained AI drafting artifacts and unchecked inserted text (e.g., 'Let me know when you’d like to proceed to the next section: Count Eight . . .'), evidencing unverified AI-generated material and potential false quotations in submissions.
Why it matters now: Leaving AI prompt artifacts in a filing is strict-liability malpractice — require a human proofread pass before any AI-assisted brief ships.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Leaving AI prompt artifacts in a filing is strict-liability malpractice — require a human proofread pass before any AI-assisted brief ships.

Record details

New JerseySingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtD. New Jersey

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit3rd Circuit

DateDec 31, 2025

AI toolUnidentified

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeSee source

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

not established

The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.

Procedural posture

Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

4 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | Supplemental Filing contained forty-three identified instances of fabricated citations or case law; Court declined to consider the filing and treated those propositions as unsupported.
Fabricated: Case Law | Consolidated Complaint was 'replete with citations to irrelevant, and sometimes fabricated, case law' across many paragraphs; Court refused to credit those citations.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Defendants noted several incorrect/inaccurate citations in the Consolidated Complaint, including two cases cited over fifty times that did not support Plaintiffs' propositions; counsel's errata did not cure these inaccuracies.
False Quotes: Exhibits & Submissions | Plaintiffs' Opposition contained AI drafting artifacts and unchecked inserted text (e.g., 'Let me know when you’d like to proceed to the next section: Count Eight . . .'), evidencing unverified AI-generated material and potential false quotations in submissions.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Eric Hildebrandt v. siParadigm LLC et al.?: Fabricated: Case Law | Supplemental Filing contained forty-three identified instances of fabricated citations or case law; Court declined to consider the filing and treated those propositions as unsupported.
Why does Eric Hildebrandt v. siParadigm LLC et al. matter for legal AI risk?: Leaving AI prompt artifacts in a filing is strict-liability malpractice — require a human proofread pass before any AI-assisted brief ships.
What does the public record establish about Eric Hildebrandt v. siParadigm LLC et al.?: Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Which source supports this Eric Hildebrandt v. siParadigm LLC et al. summary?: The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.

Related matters

Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.

OTG New York, Inc. v. Ottogi America, Inc.D. New Jersey · Sep 18, 2025same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes K.W. v. Ringwood Board of EducationD. New Jersey · Jun 16, 2026same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes Zena L. Powell v. The Borough of BergenfieldD. New Jersey · May 12, 2026same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes Baker v. Rastelli Foods LLCD. New Jersey · Mar 26, 2026same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes Alexander Shaporov v. PIPPD P.O. Matthew Levine, et al.D. New Jersey · Sep 25, 2025same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes In Re CorMedixD. New Jersey · Jul 23, 2025same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court Open jurisdiction map

Evidence boundary

Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Leaving AI prompt artifacts in a filing is strict-liability malpractice — require a human proofread pass before any AI-assisted brief ships.

Tracked discrepancy record

4 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | Consolidated Complaint was 'replete with citations to irrelevant, and sometimes fabricated, case law' across many paragraphs; Court refused to credit those citations.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Defendants noted several incorrect/inaccurate citations in the Consolidated Complaint, including two cases cited over fifty times that did not support Plaintiffs' propositions; counsel's errata did not cure these inaccuracies.

False Quotes: Exhibits & Submissions | Plaintiffs' Opposition contained AI drafting artifacts and unchecked inserted text (e.g., 'Let me know when you’d like to proceed to the next section: Count Eight . . .'), evidencing unverified AI-generated material and potential false quotations in submissions.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Eric Hildebrandt v. siParadigm LLC et al.?

Why does Eric Hildebrandt v. siParadigm LLC et al. matter for legal AI risk?

Leaving AI prompt artifacts in a filing is strict-liability malpractice — require a human proofread pass before any AI-assisted brief ships.

What does the public record establish about Eric Hildebrandt v. siParadigm LLC et al.?

Which source supports this Eric Hildebrandt v. siParadigm LLC et al. summary?

The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.